Russia’s narrative on terror in Europe – Joanna Szostek at the Milton A. Wolf Media and Diplomacy Seminar

Dr Joanna Szostek was invited to address participants of the 2016 Milton A. Wolf Media and Diplomacy Seminar in Vienna, Austria this week. This year the seminar provided a platform to discuss the multiple anxieties which came to the fore in international relations following the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels. As a participant in the first panel on ‘Narratives of Global Conflict and Negotiation Post Paris’, Dr Szostek unpacked the abrasive narrative projected by Russia in response to Islamist terrorism in Europe. Countering claims that Russia’s ‘propagandistic’ communication efforts are designed only to mislead and confuse, Dr Szostek argued that Russia’s narrative reflects its leaders’ genuine long-term objectives, including their strong desire for acceptance by other European powers.

Thanks as ever to Monroe Price, Amelia Arsenault and all those who make the Milton A. Wolf Seminar possible. 

A Reflection on Phil Howard's 'Will the “Internet of Things” Set Us Free or Lock Us Up?' Departmental Seminar

In the time it took Phil Howard to deliver his talk, the connected devices in the room had given out over 30,000 geo-location points. This is was just a small illustration of the pervasive, invisible and networked power of the “internet of things”. The question Howard wants us to ask is whether or not we should fear or welcome this.

But what is the “Internet of Things”? On the face of it, it is the enlarging network of everyday objects, such as thermostats, cars and TVs, fitted with sensors and IP addresses. Smart phones, for example, are a very familiar ‘IoT’ object.

Beyond this, Howard offers a more detailed definition. Alongside consumer electronics, the IoT has a pervasive biological and environmental character. We now have ‘IoT’ cows, for example- just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to ‘smart’ agriculture. Moreover, Howard states that the ‘IoT’ is a phenomenon that feeds existing institutions, especially because of the power that data offers. As Howard shows, the IoT creates near-perfect behaviour data. Yet, the key component here is that currently this data is about us, but not ours. In short, you could say that the IoT is a black box, or, rather: innumerable black boxes.

These are all important points, because what Howard essentially derives here is how our political order is increasingly constituted by the relationship between devices as much as the relationship between people. The seminar did not directly elaborate on how to explore this dynamic conceptually, but Howard did allude in the Q&A to Actor-Network Theory as an option here, and this is precisely how I think we should be approaching this. On this note, it was encouraging to hear Howard discuss non-human agency as a way in which to understand the political order of the IoT.

In answer to the titular question, the consequences of the Pax Technica that Howard hypothesizes, such as an overall state of cyberdeterrence between governments and connective action being able solve collective problems, can all be seen as forms of repressive or democratic stability. This is the overarching argument that Howard makes. However, I am sceptical of this dualist notion that we are witnessing a technological moment that will create either a repressive or democratic stability, despite the very insightful claims that Howard makes about the political qualities of the IoT found within this frame.

I strongly think that we should collapse the question into understanding a consistent tension among the political actors involved in the development and use of the IoT. I strongly agree with Howard that we are currently within a window of opportunity to create a more open and democratic internet of things, in lieu of an option to opt-out of the vast and intractable infrastructure, but we shouldn’t constantly frame this against a black-box apocalypse of constant surveillance, control and manipulation, nor should we think it will be our only chance.

In my view, we simply can’t know enough about the IoT to cast it in a telos. Many voices said the first internet was going to be a cyber-utopia, a cyber-nightmare, or even a fad. None of them were completely right, or wrong. The point is that technology is inherently unpredictable and flexible. And so any stable unison of politics and technology cannot last, and if it is to persist for long, it requires an ever greater amount of upkeep to maintain its power. A politically stable IoT will not be cast in steel, but made of many fine threads.

We should expect a wave of political science research on the IoT in next twelve months. Many calls for papers are beginning to invite responses to this coming change. Howard has therefore set the tone for a proactive research agenda; one that seeks to ask questions of, and intervene with, the direction of the IoT’s emergence. In this regard, Howard’s observation that political communication research should seek further collaboration with Science and Technology Studies, where researchers are overtly interventionist on these issues, is exciting and important for the future of research in this area. But I also think, and I am sure Howard would agree, that this should also extend to our colleagues in the computer science, information security and engineering departments within our universities. Howard therefore deserves a great deal of credit for taking the lead and articulating a point of reference that lets us make some sense of the internet of things, and cast our gaze forward.

 

March 15, 2016: Awan speaking at the United Nations Global Meeting on Preventing Violent Extremism

Dr Akil Awan will be speaking at the United Nations Global Meeting on Preventing Violent Extremism, 14-16 March, in Oslo, Norway. The high level global meeting of 200 government ministers, policymakers, practitioners and civil society partners, will also include speeches from key academics who will lend expert voices to the debate. Akil, as one of the expert voices will focus on Youth radicalization and political violence in the digital era, accounting for the nexus between social media technologies and the emergence of new forms of violent extremism, but also focussing on the positive role youth demographics may contribute to conflict resolution and peace initiatives. He will also discuss his experiences in the development of UN Security Council Resolution 2250, and how the International community might effectively recognise, support and promote youth-led efforts in supporting the implementation of the resolution.

NPCU @ #ISA2016 Atlanta: Russia and Ukraine on the agenda

Research from the New Political Communication Unit will be presented at this year's International Studies Association (ISA) Annual Convention in Atlanta, Georgia, 15-20 March 2016. At a pre-conference workshop on Peace, Conflict & Security on the 15th, Joanna Szostek will present a paper entitled, Universal distrust amidst information overload: News navigation strategies of students in Russia. At the main convention, Ben O'Loughlin is on a roundtable of leading policy practitioners and scholars that follows up last year’s roundtable debate about ‘rapid response public diplomacy’. Ben is also convening a panel on communication and conflict in Ukraine, with a great line-up of presenters:

Strategic Narratives and Ukraine

Thursday, March 17, 8:15 AM - 10:00 AM
Panel TA61: Strategic Narratives and Ukraine
Room 210, Hilton Atlanta

  *   Chair: Ben O'Loughlin (Royal Holloway, University of London)
  *   Discussant: Michael McFaul (Stanford University)

Abstract: There is a paradox in strategic narratives of war today. Political actors must try to set out narratives that represent a chain of cause-effect relationships. However, creating consensus around such relationships is becoming more difficult. Leaders must constantly respond to competing voices narrating conflict, making their efforts to shape the narrative both more complex and more necessary. Strategic narratives are partly an exercise in achieving a narrative structure of meaning for events in a context when, because of digital technologies and emergent dynamics, those events are not reducible to a narrative structure of meaning. In addition, any meaning is susceptible to revision when old, hidden images newly emerge. Put plainly, even for Great Powers, producing a compelling strategic narrative of war has never been more difficult. This panel takes the Ukraine crisis as a crucible to examine the role of narratives in meaning-making amid conflict and diplomatic standstill. The papers build a multi-dimensional image of how NATO, Ukrainian and Russian leaders seek to build understandings of the past, present and future of Ukraine for audiences inside Ukraine and beyond. It brings together foreign policy, conflict and insecurity, and communications.

Valentina Feklyunina (Newcastle University): Kyiv's Public Diplomacy: Strategic Narratives of and for Ukraine

Sarah Oates (University of Maryland): Russia's New War of the Words: How the Invasion of Ukraine Redefines Strategic Narrative

Alister Miskimmon and Ben O'Loughlin (Royal Holloway, University of London): Weaponising information: Putin, the West and Competing Strategic Narratives of Ukraine

Laura Roselle (Elon University): Strategic Narratives and Alliances: NATO Responses to Ukraine

Joanna Szostek (Royal Holloway, University of London): News media choice and views of the West in Russia: a study of narrative reception among university students

We hope anyone at the convention can join for these events. 

March 15, 2016: Phil Howard speaking @newpolcom on Will the “Internet of Things” set us free or lock us up?

Should we fear or welcome the internet’s evolution? The “internet of things” is the rapidly growing network of everyday objects—eyeglasses, cars, thermostats—made smart with sensors and internet addresses. Soon we will live in a pervasive yet invisible network of everyday objects that communicate with one another. In this original and provocative book, Philip N. Howard envisions a new world order emerging from this great transformation in the technologies around us.
 
Howard calls this new era a Pax Technica. He looks to a future of global stability built upon device networks with immense potential for empowering citizens, making government transparent, and broadening information access. Howard cautions, however, that privacy threats are enormous, as is the potential for social control and political manipulation. Drawing on evidence from around the world, he illustrates how the internet of things can be used to repress and control people. Yet he also demonstrates that if we actively engage with the governments and businesses building the internet of things, we have a chance to build a new kind of internet—and a more open society.

Philip N. Howard is a professor and author of seven books, including Democracy’s Fourth Wave? and The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy.  He is a frequent commentator on the impact of technology on political life, contributing to Slate.com, TheAtlantic.com and other media outlets.

PLACE: FOUNDERS FW101
TIME: 5.15PM
ALL WELCOME!